Can’t blame you.
Can’t blame you at all.
So what are you going to do about it?
“I’ll fix them. I’ll let the Republicans win…”
I sympathize. I was an Anderson voter, back when Carter gave me the creeps, and Reagan represented a movement I knew all too well… a movement I personally knew for a fact had become corrupt due to religious fanatics pouring in money.
I did not vote for Ronald Reagan. But if voting for Anderson may have contributed to the start of the madness, I plead guilty.
If only teaching Dem leaders a lesson would work. Has it ever worked? Politicians always say what you want, or at least hint at their eagerness to do what’s right, pre-election. Notice how quickly that changes after? George Bush goes from promising “compassionate Conservatism,” to promising he would do nothing to stop the final days to religious groups a bit too eager for the end times. And what about Gitmo? Or Barack going from promising change regarding war against terrorism excesses to having his lawyers defend excesses in court. And defending “don’t ask/don’t tell?”
Rewrite the script… pre-election:
“Oh, yeah, now all I just told you is crap. Here’s what I’m really going to do.”
Can you imagine either saying that, during the debates, on the stump? Not a chance in hell. And as long as we have a two party system with the kind of exclusivity, the kind of power and benefits that comes with being part of that kind of system, that kind of duplicity will continue.
To quote a poster at Volconvo.com…
Conclusion: You have 2 completely tasteless political entities, and an unscrupulous media, leading a bunch of terrified lemmings off a cliff…again… well done.
-Buzz62
“Well done” if you’re the candidates and we’re the lemmings.
Seems they have us in a box, don’t they?
And it hardly matters what side of the political spectrum you’re on: this is the nature of any two party system as restrictive as ours: vote for the marginally not quite as bad, or let the horrid win hoping we’ll survive as a species until the next election simply starts the shell game again.
Every time we punish our Democratic leaders, anyone notice how they respond? They get more compliant: less likely to fight back. But pissed off Dems, this election, really need to ask themselves a question…
How’s all that “punish them” stuff been working for you?
If history should teach any lesson it’s not we should punish some marginally less horrid party by allowing power to be handed over to the worse party. It’s like pumping steroids into the most horrific tendencies of both parties: encouraging them to drive faster and farther into Crazyland.
After all, the leadership of the Democratic Party already have this handled. Lose, it’s because we didn’t compromise enough, we weren’t “DLC” enough. Win and those interested in reshaping Dems more and more into Neo Con light will claim it was because they’re successfully herding the party in, literally, the “right” direction.
Recent history teaches something else: no matter how obnoxious or ignorant you may think they may be, teabagger-type organizing has results when it comes to getting a party to select candidates. Winning elections on a large scale? No so much, though the upcoming election could redefine that.
If they lose big, then the meme will be it’s because the party wasn’t teabag enough. Win and they’re headed in the right direction. Where have I read this before? Oh, yeah, I just typed it regarding the Dems.
Unlike reactions to unorganized, fruitless “punish the damn Dem” tactics, Republican leaders are doing all they can to pacify and please the Baggers: despite the fact that their actual record of getting people elected so far is somewhat of a joke.
The diff? Baggers have organized themselves into a force; as silly as they may seem, that demands attention. If only we could get even those kinds of results! If only we had that kind of dedication. …taken that seriously by our own party.
To quote the man that for the past two years has said the opposite far too often…
“Yes, we can.”
Notice the teabaggers main focus is not actually Palin, or O’Donnell, or… Unlike us the focus is not on Dems, or Repubs. No, they have found an issue or two: taxes, deficit spending, as a rallying point. They take that to the streets. Their pols must at least preach that message to get their vote. Live up to it? Well, not as much.
I’m not a fan of the movement, I just think they’re on to something that we don’t seem to get: yet. You cannot change the discussion, the parties, the candidates, by making it about them. Instead, find something a lot of people would like to change. Then organize, organize, organize… get in, and stay in, the face of the party most likely to move your way: even if it’s only marginally so. But with an identity: a name for the movement, a purpose and a clear message.
How about election reform?
Real election reform that makes the parties actually work for your vote, and work more honestly for your vote. Election reform that cuts the heart out of the monopoly a marginally “two” party system creates. If the leaders of both parties knew you, Mr. or Ms. Voter, really had some other place else to go, maybe you might spend a little less pissed off?
Proposed: a movement. Working title only for now: Freedom Fighters for True Representation, (FFTR). Here are some of the possible agendas…
I’m sure I missed other changes and some certainly can be modified, added, subtracted from; or even deleted.
Meanwhile, vote tomorrow. Not voting achieves nothing. Voting at least allows you to guess who might be the most interested in changing. Don’t worry if you guess wrong.
Post tomorrow’s election is when the real work begins. When we can start the movement that pulls the rug out from underneath the game. Prepare to get in the face of both parties with such demands, take to the streets, agitate within the party for such changes, organize with the intent of changing the system: get their attention.
To get the kind of attention, and the kind of candidates selected that might support our cause, follow the lead of groups like the teabaggers, if we must. If dressing up in weird costumes gets attention: do it. If making weird statements works: do it. Start your own local organization, grass root group: hell, use the very corrupt system in place right now against those who helped corrupt it, and so eagerly abuse it.
It will be a long, hard, fight. But punishing parties will never achieve a damn thing. After all, post 2006 and 2008 how much did the Republicans learn? Word: squat. After 2000 and 2004, how much did the Democratic leadership learn? Word: squat. No one learns because the real power no longer rests with the voter.
Again: vote tomorrow, if you haven’t voted yet.. vote for the marginally less vile, if you must. Those more likely to at least listen. Go ahead. Hold your nose and vote. Because if you simply don’t vote, or vote for those with no chance of winning, you are doing the bidding of the little party hacks who protect the Wizards in their corporate built Oz-like facades.
“Go away.”
Don’t go away.
Organize. Stay in their face. Keep demanding they pay attention to the cause. Guerrilla style politics does work. And every time it does work, maybe then, and only then, will you begin to be a little less pissed off.
Isn’t “less” better?
-30-
Inspection is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over 30 years. Inspection is dedicated to looking at odd angles, under all the rocks and into the unseen cracks and crevasses that constitute the issues and philosophical constructs of our day: places few think, or even dare, to venture.
©Copyright 2010
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
All Rights Reserved
I know the prominent thought is that voting 3rd party candidate is just a give away to the candidate you REALLY don’t want to win, but hey aren’t there folks on the other side who are unhappy with their candidates too?
My Dad always thought there should be a “none of the above” choice. He often wrote in a candidates name. Or at least he said he did. What if all the disgruntled voters voted for 3rd party candidates? Wouldn’t that at least send the message that we are unhappy w/the candidates? I know that the more votes they get the more they have a say in local politics.
And what about those ads we HATE but the candidates keep running? I fortunately do not have TV so I don’t see them, but 15 minutes in a laundromat had me ready to throw a brick at the TV. I would bet that the incessant AWFUL ads keep some people away from the polls. By the time the election arrives they just are too frazzled to care enough to vote.
I know that is not the way to go but it sure feels like it.
Ken, you have some good election reform ideas I agree with, but one problem is how do you qualify candidates for the primary? Too low a threshold and you could have hundreds of primary candidates; too high and you’re back to what we have now, with only those with political organization, i.e. parties, able to get the necessary signatures to qualify, especially in large states like Illinois and California.
As to the Tea Party ‘movement,’ if we had some moneybags like the Koch brothers funding progressive groups, and more liberal ownership of the Big Media, then you’d have the same coverage of progressive causes. Look at the Stewart/Colbert Rally on Saturday — it drew over 150,000 to 200,000 people compared to Glenn Beck’s 87,000, yet most of the major news networks either didn’t cover it, or covered it entirely as a joke. Jon Stewart’s final serious speech, and his point, was all but lost. Until it becomes unprofitable for corporations to back Republicans, we are going to have this imbalance in the coverage, and a consequent imbalance in public perception. As we’ve seen recently in many states, but especially Alaska and Delaware where Teabag candidates are dropping like rocks, Teabaggers are a fringe-right phenomenon numbering no more than 15 percent of the population; they were elevated to a ‘major force’ by dint of corporate money and media coverage to keep the weak and bumbling GOP in play this election. There is no counter-balance on the left as well-funded and well-organized. But I do think the Teabaggers will be gone after this election — their goofiness cost the GOP one sure seat in Delaware, and caused the wealthy elite to spend more in what would have been safe GOP states like Nevada and Alaska. The minute corporate astroturf money is removed from the Tea Party bloodstream, you won’t hear of them anymore.
Joyce, in my state they ignore write-ins and third parties, unless they get over 20 percent of the vote, so the major parties learn nothing. The media doesn’t even cover that vote. It’s a futile gesture that’s already been tried. In some states they do have a ‘None of the Above’ box, but when was the last time you heard any coverage of the results of that vote? Progressives either have to keep challenging Blue Dogs Dems with better candidates, as we did with Blanche Lincoln in AR, until the Dems get the message, or start a viable third party which most of the left are incapable of doing because they won’t prioritize or compromise with each other on what’s important.
Joyce…
I should have added “none of the above.” I have said that for years too. I think those ads would be basically cut through my proposals, or at least limited.
Rick…
I had thought a one time top 4 would work, but 100s of candidates may be a problem. Frankly I don’t give a damn if we have 3-10 primaries to cut down to 4. And it would still be less pricey than what we do right now. The object is to determine voter preference. I have a “no rush” policy: as it should be. Number of primaries determined by number of candidates. Primaries quickly follow each other but as we cut down the numbers the pace slows. Or we could do it the other way.
Funding is absolutely a concern. I had it in the column but edited out. Made it too complex. Too damn long. There are Dem sugar daddies and certainly those more familiar with Democratic Party/mover and shaker specifics can help.
Let’s put it this way. You’re the glass is half full guy. But you’re making my point. If we don’t do this we might as well piss in the wind: especially with the recent Court decision. This goes back to making a footnote into a ruling after the clerk to that justice knew the justice wouldn’t object: he was dead.
Even if, and when, that happens they’ll simply find another avenue. And I think it will be a better one when they can treat them like yesterday’s trash.
While I included the teabaggers, my comment is more about how effective this issue oriented organizing can be. Otherwise we’re left doing the circular firing squad that we seem to be big fans of.
Is any of this going to be easy? HELL no. But… you have a better solution?
Having multiple primaries is fine but, realistically, we’re having a hard enough time getting the public to pay attention during the general election — wouldn’t multiple primaries be dominated by the same small and well-financed special interests we have now?
As I said, I agree with your ideas, Ken, but I can’t see Congress enacting them anytime soon. I’d like to go to a parliamentary system where multiple parties have some say, but that’s not likely to happen, either. Major changes won’t take place until there’s a deeper crisis than the one we’re in now, an economic catastrophe so widespread, such as a new Great Depression, that the majority will clearly see it’s the moneyed interests, FDR’s ‘economic royalists,’ who have been causing the problems in the first place. In my view, this disaster is on its way, since there have been few changes to the basic system that led to the 2008 collapse. The only reason for voting for Dems this year is that I think we’ll have a softer crash landing under them than under the GOP, and a quicker recovery. It would be nice if Washington changed just because it’s the right thing to do but, historically, I can’t think of one instance where that has occured. In fact, they’re usually about a decade behind the times in DeeCee and most have no idea of what the average American goes through daily to survive.
I may be a glass-half-empty type, as you say, and I hope I’m wrong, but I see the glass completely empty in the not-too-distant future — likely before 2014. At that point, we’ll either become democratic-socialist Sweden or fascist Nazi Germany.
This evening we’ll find out how many Americans bought the recycled-from-2000 GOP nonsense of cutting taxes for the rich to create jobs for everyone else. Since the Punditry guaranteeing the GOP will win at least the House has a long record of bumbling inaccuracy, we might be pleasantly surprised by tomorrow morning that the Dems still retain a majority in both chambers. Perhaps then a miracle will happen, and they’ll actually pass laws to rectify our economic slide and rein in Wall Street, campaign money and the banks.
But I won’t hold my breath as I drink that half-empty glass of — what’s this? — Kool-Aid?!?
Not if we totally cut out corporate financing. Public elections: public financing.
Hey! I’m the glass is half empty guy here! Of course if no one agitates for it, no FFTR type organization, it will never happen. Frankly, as far as I’m concerned if we don;t do something we might as well decide to become good, obedient, members of the newest National Socialist nation. Waiting for the public to “get it” and the media to do their damn job is a fool’s errand. Voting them out too. Otherwise they just come back two years later.
Now, wait, I thought I was saying you’re the half full guy. You can’t have both roles. Mine! Mine! All mine!!!
The disaster you speak of will never get the traction the old one did. They didn’t have the propaganda system in place they do now. Did you ever imagine it could have gotten as bad as it did, esp. under Bush? Did you imagine they would have so successfully laced the image of Barack to blame for all in so many of the minds out there not even two years later?
I promise you: if they wake up again the machine will make damn sure they fall asleep ASAP. Look over there! Lindsay Lohan! What weird thing is she doing now?
As far as tonight the most important question is how much BS the public buys from FOX, Hannity, Savage, Breitbart, etc. tomorrow. As I sit here ABC, NBC and CBS are all focusing in on how the country is angry and that means Obama and the Dems are in trouble. Not one damn result is in. It’s so damn obvious who they are rooting for.
Now, now matter what, does what actually happens matter? Not so much as what the public buys into.
Why? Because we have come to live in a Goebbels-fied country.
After last night the teabag movement may still have plenty of idiots. But it only served to underline my point. Organizing works. Even for idiots. In fact perhaps we intellectualize and drop the passion a bit too damn much.
I also think this might be the second Supreme Court decided election. Once again: we cannot change this through mere elections… last night proved that. They win, they lose, they win, they lose. We win, we lose, we win, we lose. Want to bet the Supremes will come down with another decision just before 2012?
We have to find some way to short circuit the corrupted election process that has created this nose dive into hell. Just waiting for the public to be “fed up,” or learn a lesson is foolish and very bad advice, IMO. Besides: they didn’t “wait,” and what they have done obviously worked.
When will we learn?
Greetings! Keep up the good work. That was a interesting comment. I am interested in find out more about this fascinating topic. Bye. Greetings from Estonia.
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘0 which is not a hashcash value.